United States v. Juri Ripinsky, United States of America v. J. Malcolm Kingston
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juri RIPINSKY, Defendant-Appellant; UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. Malcolm KINGSTON, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING The opinion in the above case, filed on March 28, 1997 [ 109 F.3d 1436 ], is amended as follows:
At slip op. 3500, lines 3-4 [109 F.3d at 1440], delete “for locating the properties” and replace with “to compensate fictitious real estate brokerages which.”
At slip op. 3501, line 2 [109 F.3d at 1440, right column, line 15], change “he” to “Kingston.”
At slip op. 3506, second full paragraph (starting “Because Ripinsky”), line 4 [109 F.3d at 1443], delete from sentence starting “Our recent” to end of the paragraph; add the next paragraph to the second full paragraph; change the citation of Turman to “United States v. Turman, 122 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir.1997) (Turman)”.
At slip op. 3507 [109 F.3d at 1443], change the citation after the indented quote to “Id., 122 F.3d at 1170 (citation omitted).”
At slip op. 3507 [109 F.3d at 1443], third line after indented quote, insert the following after “Stein.”: “See United States v. Golb, 69 F.3d 1417, 1428 (9th Cir.1995) (reviewing Stein error for plain error), cert. denied, — *519 U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 1369 , 134 L.Ed.2d 534 (1996).”
At slip op. 3510, line 4 [109 F.3d at 1444, 1445], delete last sentence and citation in the carryover paragraph (“There was no ... at 878.”); add the following sentence, “The law at the time of trial was not ‘settled and clearly contrary to the law at the time of appeal.’
Turman, 122 F.3d at 1170 (citation omitted).”
At slip op. 3510, first fall paragraph, line 5 [109 F.3d at 1445], change Turman citation to “Turman, 122 F.3d at 1171 .”
At slip op. 3512, first full paragraph, lines 13-20 [109 F.3d at 1446], delete last sentence and citation following: “Moreover, the government ... authority to depart).”
With the above amendments, the panel as constituted above has voted to deny the petitions for rehearing and to reject the suggestions for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).
The petitions for rehearing are denied, and the suggestions for rehearing en banc are rejected.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
("While Unruh involved section 656 rather than section 1344, the same concerns apply [to § 1344].")
Cited by 14 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. Robert E. Ladum Ronald D. Van Vliet Daniel Hong Echols Doyle Ford David C. Grigonis James R. Weaver
- United States v. Thongsangoune Sayakhom
- United States of America v. John C. Whitehead
- UNITED STATES of America v. Gulmohamed Abdulkader SERANG
- UNITED STATES of America v. Abdul Rahman Mohammed DEEB and Ahmad Naim Bayaa
- United States v. Wayne Anderson
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.